WQ.7 


UBLICATIONS     OF 
WHITTIER    STATE    SCHOOL,    V.HII/IER,    CALIFORNIA 
FRED.  C.   NELLES,    SU  .- £R  I  N  TE  N  D  ENT 


DEPARTMENT  OF   RESEARCH 


BULLETIN     NO.     5 


A   SCALE    FOR  GRADING 
NEIGHBORHOOD  CONDITIONS 


BY 


J.    HAROLD   WILLIAMS,  Ph. D 


WHITTIER     ST  A  -CHOOL 

DEPARTMENT    OF    PRlNs         G    INSTRUCTION 

MAY        1  i  i  7 


_      ^ 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 

JAN  4     W^ 


JAN  3     1927 


rx 


JUL  3  0   ^^'^^ 

AUG,  2      1929  , 
flUa  9      192S 

^PR  7     mi 
JAN  5      t932 


JAN  21  194b 


ilH 


^4Af  3  0 


ma 


my  2  7  1933^ 


to--      ^^^^ 


\9^'' 


i^^F[-,4 


OfO- 


LD    L      ' 


'iiiN^Mfe 


4-9 

4 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 

Los  Angeles 


Form  L  1 


i 


i^ 


A  SCALE  FOR  GRADING  NEIGHBORHOOD  CONDITIONS 

SUPPLEMENTING  THE  WHITTIER  SCALE   FOR  GRADING  HOME  CONDITIONS 

J.  HAROLD  WILLIAMS,  Ph.D. 
Director  of  Research,  Whittier  State  School 

Since  the  recent  publication  of  the  Whittier  Scale  for  Grading 
Home  Conditions*  the  value  and  practicability  of  the  method  has  been 
demonstrated  by  our  subsequent  investigations  and  verified  by  the  tes- 
timony of  several  others  who  have  found  the  scale  adapted  to  their 
work.  The  grading  of  homes,  neighborhoods,  and  other  environmental 
conditions  may  come  to  occupy  an  important  place  in  the  study  of 
social  problems,  and  to  furnish  useful  supplementary  material  to  in- 
telligence measurements,  health  surveys,  family  history,  etc. 

Hom.e  and  neighborhood  conditions  have  long  been  considered 
i-mportant  factors  in  the  educational  and  moral  development  of  children, 
and  to  be  of  special  significance  in  the  production  and  prevention  of 
juvenile  delinquency.  It  has  been  necessary,  however,  to  express  these 
conditions  in  somewhat  vague  and  indefinite  terms,  because  of  the  lack 
of  any  systematic  scheme  of  observation  and  classification.  An  assist- 
ant probation  officer  recently  reported  concerning  one  of  his  charges : 
' '  Boy  lived  in  a  poor  home  in  a  bad  part  of  town. ' '  This  was  the  extent 
of  his  report,  so  far  as  home  and  neighborhood  conditions  wei*e  con- 
cerned. A  visit  by  our  field-worker  verified  his  statement ;  the  grading 
of  the  home  resulted  in  a  detailed  description  and  classification  on  the 
basis  of  (I)  necessities,  (II)  neatness,  (III)  size,  (IV;  parental  con- 
ditions, and  (V)  parental  supervision.  Each  item^  following  a  com- 
parison with  the  samples  on  the  standard  score  card  was  accorded  a 
grade  of  1  point.  The  home  index  is  5,  relatively  low,  as  suggested 
by  the  probation  report,  even  in  comparison  with  homes  of  other  delin- 
quent boys.  The  neighborhood  in  which  the  home  is  located  was  ac- 
corded an  index  of  8,  following  the  method  to  be  described  in  this 
article. 

c 

*  Journal  of  Delinquency,  Vol.  I  No.  5,  Nov.  1916,  pp.  273-286.  Reprinted  as 
Department  of  Research  Bulletin  No.  3,  Whittier  State  School.  The  Scale  for 
Grading  Home  Conditions  is  based  upon  the  following  items:  /.  Necessities;  II. 
Neatness;  III.  Size;  IV.  Parental  Conditions;  V.  Parental  Supervision.  Each 
item  is  graded  on  a  scale  of  five  points,  and  the  item  scores  added  to  obtain  the 
Home  Index. 

(1) 


2  Whittier  State  School:   Department  of  Research 

Another  boy  was  reported  to  be  "living  in  a  neighborhood  with 
bad  environment."  Our  investigation  showed  the  home  to  have  an  index 
of  10,  and  the  neighborhood  index  to  be  9 ;  both  relatively  low,  as 
expected,  but  much  more  clearly  understood  because  of  the  applicatioji 
of  a  systematic  method  of  grading. 

In  some  cases  our  grading  is  not  in  such  close  agreement  with  the 
report  of  the  probation  officer  as  in  the  cases  just  referred  to.  This 
is  not  often  due  to  differences  in  accuracy  of  observation,  but  to  the 
inadequacy  of  such  terms  as  "good,"  "bad,"  "fair,"  "poor,"  etc.,  for 
comparative  purposes.  The  application  of  a  uniform  scale  minimizes 
the  need  for  using  descriptive  adjectives  in  stating  general  conditions. 
Our  inquiries  have  led  to  the  belief  that  the  home  and  neighborhood 
grading  scales  furnish  reliable  means  for  expressing  the  conditions 
which  they  are  intended  to  classify. 

METHOD  OF  GEADTNG  NEIGIIBOEIIOODS 

As  in  the  grading  of  homes,  a  personal  visit  is  required  to  obtain 
reliable  data  for  grading  neighborhoods.  Both  home  and  neighbor- 
hood, in  most  of  our  cases,  are  graded  from  data  secured  at  the  same 
time.  The  field-worker  makes  a  careful  inspection  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
home,  notes  the  location,  the  approximate  number  of  homes,  the  rela- 
tive density  of  the  population,  the  relative  number  of  children, 
and  other  significant  points.  AVhile  the  points  just  men- 
tioned are  not  graded,  they  are  of  importance  for  both  comparative 
and  interpretative  purposes.  These  are  recorded  on  the  individual 
score  card  with  the  graded  data.     (See  samples  in  Fig.  2). 

The  neighborhood  is  graded  upon  the  basis  of  five  items,  as  fol- 
lows: T,  neatness,  sanitation,  and  improvements;  II,  playground  fa- 
cilities; III,  institutions  and  establishments;  IV,  social  status  of  resi- 
dents; V,  average  grade  of  homes.  Each  item  is  graded  on  a  scale  of 
five  points ;  1  point  representing  decidedly  unfavorable  conditions, 
5  points  representing  favorable  conditions,  and  2,  3  and  4  representing 
conditions  of  varying  favorability  l)etween  the  two  extremes.  The 
standard  score  card  (show.^  in  tentative  form  in  Fig.  1)  contains  sam- 
ples of  data  descriptive  of  actual  neighborhood  conditions  for  each 
item,  which  grade  1  point,  3  points,  and  5  points  respectively.  This 
series  of  samples  serves  as  a  guide?  in  grading  the  data  for  the  individ- 


I 

0) 

\ 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions 


< 

o 

O  III 

a:  "^  X 

O  OS  tt 


!2  Q  £ 

a. 

oi^  -r 

gt-u; 

"■  lO  < 

1^  »/) 

UJ  ^  > 


■3   *  ft 

££:? 

||| 

S  g  S  s 


CO 


s£" 


15 


<2c-g 


£§3 


ilS'E 


IT) 


050 


CO 


I  1 

s     1 

3         3 


<t 


O  P 

5" 


IT) 


V  o  3 


i—i  ( 


rip 


5^  =  •"  c 


IP 


CO 


ti  4 


Si-    5 


IP 


3S' 


<  z  _i  u 
2|i| 


10 


III! 


0  n^       1: 


CO 


8gJ 


S'^g 


<  OS 


If) 

s 

I 

B 
S  0 
Z   K 


CO 


1  -s 


•3 

I 

^    o 

S   B 

S  I 


2g 


FIG.    1.     TENTATIVE    STANDARD    SCORE-CARD 
Showing  summarized  data  for  each  item  grading  1,  3,  and  5  points. 


Whittier  State  School:  Department  of  Research 


Neighborhood 
No/«?.        Name '^"'^«. '^o''"                  Date  «,s,tcd  Oc<f»4er  2J,/9/6  mdex    d 

Tt-S 

DESCRIPTION  OF  iTEWS                                                                                 R   COR      0      V      >f  .At.  C 

«0B 

ss. 

Oll-t^  poorlu  kr^pt    ^a^roCS      Some    o^S    ■^'^'■'^^'•S,     *""!     a^"  /xyor/y 

City  wa/t^>;  no  oihet  convKt^iSf^ces    //owSGs   -^osfy  Ccf*t6/9<ij-ttoum  sAmj^_  po,h.s 

rss- 

Srt^eu//  <^ifiy   t^cufci^^     y\.a^frotA/    cCusty    roa^iC^    S/rfCu//  tfn^/ea^ 
/looses-     A/ea^r^sC    a/>c'r>    /o-ndL      3  6^aci^s    c^/s^«x/r*- 

2. 

|#;f 

One   6/<K"<-   60  /-tc/e    Jc/iao/      f^r^i^i,  atistrict   Kirtf^. 

poor     r-Bpu-tt-t  lOt^ 

2 

— ■- 

Moiiiif    Jo^ei^ft   /cuSorers .     /^or    t/n^aCuco^9dC      PotgA 

/ 

SS'» 

*MoTt}y'°gZfe    6^t^^r,    J-a.„«   /O    ="    Wh.ti''^'    ^ca.,e 

2 

.,^>  «.  Sm-S"'""  ""    2e> 

Neighborhood 
No  9  7 Name  Zy x,  >V/  ///«,/>, Date  visited  ^one  >(..   '  9/6         |„<|„    /.? 

ITEMS 

OESCRIPTION  or  ITEMS                                                                                 RECORDED  B,      /^  ^.  ^ 

"»"' 

S;ois;„s 

/a^tc/zra    eve//   A^e/J"!-      Unpa,i^scL    Str-eet       daacL    Sia.au/a,//(i;. 
street   li^h-ts       (Sity  Mcuter  «-"<*    ■SeM^'-       3  6'oc'^s   from 
Ca^r    /ine 

4 

^■^" 

Ya^rcCs    Of    med-'cim    Sl^e       ^'3*^^    -tro-i^ic    in    streets. 
V^ell  6ci/t<^p    region 

4 

•S^^fZ^,\ 

Tw<3   6IOCKS    aroi^    soAoo/      Otheruuise.     Sfcl(ySi^«'y 
^€5/d^^oce-     s&ct'on       Two    •s-tofcz    cundL  poof  •  rooA, 
not  fa-i-  «.«vixy 

4 

s'«Co'.«,' 

FoLiir/i^    iVe.ll-6a-<Aa    ^ nx-cCe s  r^er>  .  Mof6/y    pi-opettj^ 
Own&'rs     A6out    e'pmania^  JcAoo/  &cCuca,tion^    none. 

3 

TAis  rejion    a.i/«r<x^as    fSroSo    an    W>>.U,or    Saa.le 

4 

XL    NO    OT   CNKORCH                                   AltmV*^ 

t.i.     3l>^f-o.rnento 

.                                                                             Neighborhood 
No /<5V?       Name   R < ''^  K,  U'^^'^e^       Dale  visited   /^oyemier /f,/9'.S' \„it^    22 

,.t-s 

DESCRIPTION  or  ITEMS                                                                                 »ECORDIOS.        /^ /^ ,(; . 

UO.I 

Z'::i^i. 

We.ll  pa^veoc.   aity  S6ree.t^  or>e.  b/ocK  /from  e^uo/i  a/r 
tu/o    OOLJ- //nes       /t// O'iif  I'-^pro-^ments,    w/oyier    /ightiiy. 
^jev^er,    etc     Houses  aun  ^occei-n  a^i^oL    i^e/AVe/arf. 

6 

ritds-" 

fJo  pubhe.   plot-y^rounat..      Srr^a.//  cfa,i-ei~s,     cCsnS<a/y 
rrtre-ets 

.?„ 

5'#-'' 

(Jne    6/ocK  ^ronry    nea.r9s^     sttHoot      Gne    6/ac^ 
from    business    sirr^rt    o^  ry<i5i:e"<^neoiyi     stores 
A/o  so^/oorts,    fcLator,e^°[roui/rocL.oLs 

5 

r£i;-.vr 

Peou:e/ul,    /CLM  a,6,cLina   peopM,    Of  'Ty'<    ref  'nernant. 
Pro6o:,6/:^   ■^'^■*    Tcrtool     a.r,A.      <7<5//.?a«   o^^uaajt'On     >J*'//,fea: 
LaM6orers,  business    Toer).    rnodU3'a.-Zely   ure/f  €o-oCo 

4 

"0-l» 

A/Iost'y    CLi/etayc      So-JJ-   on    H">.rt-e/-    Sca-/e 

s 

«-».  -o  i"^"""*"  ■""    J""  -»0 

"1  ""^.".X.                «vr*iJ 

■  ■■  Lojyin&£ie-i^   1 

FIG.  2.  SAMPLES  OF  INDIVIDUAL  NEIGHBOR- 
HOOD SCORE-CARDS 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions  5 

ual  score  cards.  The  grading  is  based  upon  the  extent  to  which  the 
((uality  of  the  conditions  to  be  graded  resembles  the  quality  repre- 
sented in  the  comparative  samples.*  If  the  quality  of  the  item 
approximates  that  of  the  samples  on  the  standard  score  card,  grade 
1,  3,  or  5  may  be  accorded ;  if  the  conditions  are  better  than  those 
indicated  by  the  lowest  sample,  and  yet  not  so  favorable  as  those  rep- 
resented by  grade  3,  the  data  may  be  accorded  a  grade  of  2  points. 
Similarly,  0  may  be  used  for  expressing  the  value  of  items  inferior 
to  grade  1,  and  6  points  may  be  given  for  conditions  superior  to  the 
sample  grading  5.  Gradings  other  than  points  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  5,  how- 
ever, are  rarely  necessary.  The  extension  of  points  is  allowed  in 
order  that  every  neighborhood,  no  matter  how  inferior  or  superior, 
may  be  given  its  relative  status. 

ITEMS  FOR  GRADING 

After  analyzing,  classifying  and  grading  data  on  many  neigh- 
borhoods, ranging  from  extremely  unfavorable  to  very  favorable,  the 
conclusion  has  been  reached  that  most  neighborhoods  can  be  reliably 
graded  upon  the  basis  of  five  lines  of  inquiry,  all  of  which  are  believed 
to  represent  important  factors  in  the  desirability  of  a  given  locality 
for  the  social  development  of  growing  children.  A  description  of 
each  item  follows : 

I.  Neatness,  Sanitation,  and  Improvements.  This  includes  the 
extent  to  which  homes,  yards  and  streets  are  well  cared  for;  whether 
lawns  and  gardens,  if  any,  are  kept  up ;  what  sanitary  provisions 
have  been  made,  either  by  public  or  private  enterprise ;  whether 
streets  are  paved  and  well  kept.  Littered  or  dirty  yards,  shabby,  un- 
painted  buildings  and  fences,  unsanitary  barns  and  outbuildings,  or- 
dinary dirt  roads,  if  neglected,  lack  of  street  lighting,  and  absence 
of  transportation  facilities  are  considered  unfavorable.  Neat,  clean 
yards,  well-kept  lawns,  sanitary  improvements,  city  water,  neatly 
painted  buildings,  orderly  gardens,  flowers,  trees,  electric  street  lights 
and  well  paved  streets  are  examples  of  what  may  be  considered  favor- 
able conditions.  Rural  neighborhoods  usually  grade  lower  than  city 
neighborhoods  in  this  item,  but  some  of  our  poorest  conditions  are 
found  in  cities.  Where  there  is  lack  of  public  improvements  the 
neighborhood  may  still  be  brought  up  to  a  reasonably  high  level  bj 
private  improvements   and  neat  and  sanitary  conditions,  which   are 


*Note  that  the  basis  of  grading  is  resemblance  in  qtiality,  not  in  specific  detail. 


6  Whittier  State  School:   Department  of  Research 

possible  in  almost  any  community.     However,   adequate   public   and 
private  improvements  are  most  often  found  together. 

II.  Playground  Facilities.  The  purpose  of  this  item  is  particu- 
larly for  the  comparison  of  crowded,  thickly  settled  communities,  where 
it  is  necessary  for  children  to  play  in  the  streets,  in  alleys,  or  in 
small  yards,  with  neighborhoods  providing  plenty  of  play  space. 
Tenement  districts  grade  low  on  this  point,  while  the  open  rural 
country  grades  high.  A  city  neighborhood  may  grade  high  if  provided 
with  public  playgrounds,  and  a  rural  community  is  graded  low  if  the 
open  space  is  not  adapted  to  play  purposes.  The  grading  is  based 
upon  the  extent,  desirability  and  equipment  of  the  space  provided. 

III.  Institutions  and  Establishments.  Relates  particularly  to  in- 
stitutions and  establishments  which  may  be  of  some  moral  or  immoral 
consequence.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  scale  to  actually  evaluate 
these  consequences,  but  to  place  a  numerical  grade  upon  the  extent 
to  which  they  occur  in  the  neighborhood.  Public  schools,  colleges, 
churches,  libraries,  and  public  parks  are  usually  considered  favorable. 
Saloons,  pool-rooms,  breweries,  houses  of  ill-fame,  police-courts,  jails 
and  railroad  yards  are  among  the  establishments  which  usually  cause 
a  neighborhood  to  grade  low  in  this  item.  Factories,  stores,  theaters, 
hospitals,  and  other  establishments  may  grade  either  high  or  low, 
depending  upon  their  relation  to  the  neighborhood  in  the  judgment 
of  the  observer.  There  are  some  instances  in  which  both  favorable 
institutions  and  those  which  are  unfavorable  occur  in  the  same  vicinity. 
In  such  cases  the  observer  determines  whether  their  influences  bal- 
ance each  other,  or  whether  the  one  quality  predominates. 

IV.  Social  Status  of  Residents.  Here  consideration  is  given  to 
the  intelligence,  education,  refinement,  diligence,  moral  character,  so- 
cial harmony,  and  law-abiding  qualities  of  persons  living  in  the  vicin- 
ity. This  item  refers  to  conditions  most  frequently  found  in  the 
n<'ighl)orlioo(l.  A  few  exceptional  individuals,  even  if  living  in  the 
home  of  the  propositus,  would  not  ordinarily  affect  the  score.  In 
Ihe  vast  majority  of  cases  the  social  status  of  the  residents  clusters 
around  a  fairly  even  level.  Intelligent,  law-abiding  and  industrious 
I)frsons  tend  to  settle  in  neigliborhoods  where  those  virtues  are  com- 
mon. Ignorant,  boisterous  and  immoral  persons  also  tend  to  flock 
together.  As  a  rule,  there  is  a  close  relation  between  the  social 
status  score  and  the  genernl  index  of  the  neighborhood. 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions  7 

V.  Average  Grade  of  Homes.  The  scoring  of  this  item  is  based 
upon  an  estimate  of  the  average  grade  of  homes  by  the  Whittier 
Scale  for  Grading  Home  Conditions.  Since  there  is  always  at  least 
one  home  which  is  graded  in  detail,  as  regards  both  objective  and 
subjective  conditions,  the  trained  field-worker  is  able  to  approximate 
the  average  grade  of  homes  with  a  fairly  high  degree  of  reliability. 
Here  also  is  evidenced  the  tendency  for  the  individual  parts  of  a 
neighborhood  to  strike  a  common  level.  There  are  notable  exceptions, 
however,  especially  in  certain  neighborhoods  of  delinquent  children, 
in  which  the  home  index  of  the  propositus  (which  is  recorded  under 
this  item)  differs  significantly  from  the  neighborhood  general  average. 

RELIABILITY  OF  GRADING 

As  a  preliminary  test  of  the  reliability  of  the  scale,  the  data 
on  thirty  unseored  individual  neighborhood  cards,  wholly  uuselected, 
were  graded  independently  by  the  writer  and  Mr.  Cowdery,  field- 
worker  for  the  Department  of  Research.  The  results  of  the  separate 
gradings  are  shown  in  Table  I.  The  marks  given  by  IMr.  Cowdery 
(A)  and  the  writer  (B)  show  very  close  agreement,  considering  that 
only  tentative  standards  were  available  for  comparison.  Our  famili- 
arity with  the  nature  and  development  of  the  scale  may  have  affected 
the  similarity  of  the  gradings,  but  it  is  probable  that  any  person  who 
would  have  occasion  to  use  the  scale  would  score  with  as  high  a 
degree  of  reliability  by  following  the  standard  score  card. 

With  Table  I  is  given  a  summary  of  agreement,  which  shows 
that  both  in  the  individual  items  and  in  the  neighborhood  index 
there  is  a  close  similarity  of  grading.  In  29  of  the  30  cases  the 
agreement  on  index  was  within  2  points — reliable  enough  for  all 
practical  purposes.  In  grading  the  separate  items,  A  and  B  agree 
within  one  point  in  every  instance  and  in  two-thirds  of  the  cases 
there  is  exact  agreement.  The  use  of  the  final  score  card  with  rep- 
resentative samples  of  items  grading  1,  2,  3,  4  and  5  is  expected  to 
produce  still  more  accurate  results,  since  nearly  all  cases  of  disagree 
ment  occur  in  determining  the  intermediate  scores  of  2  and  4,  samples 
of  which  do  not  appear  among  the  tentative  standards. 

Although  this  preliminary  test  indicates  that  different  persons 
would  probably  accord  gradings  sufficiently  alike  to  serve  the  pur- 


8  Whittier  State  School:  Department  of  Research 

TABLE  I.  RESULTS  OF  INDEPENDENT  GRADINGS  OF  TWO 
PERSONS  ON  DATA  CONCERNING  30  UNSELECTED  NEIGHBOR- 
HOODS. 


(A 

J 

(B) 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

Index 

•Slo. 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

Index 

Differ. 

1 

1 

1 

2 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

6 

0 

2 

2 

1 

2 

8 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

8 

0 

2 

3 

2 

2 

10 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

8 

2 

2 

1 

4 

4 

12 

4 

2 

1 

4 

2 

4 

13 

1 

2 

3 

3 

4 

13 

5 

3 

3 

3 

2 

4 

15 

2 

1 

5 

3 

2 

3 

14 

6 

1 

5 

3 

2 

3 

14 

0 

1 

5 

3 

3 

3 

15 

7 

1 

5 

3 

3 

3 

15 

0 

I 

5 

3 

2 

3 

14 

8 

1 

5 

3 

2 

4 

15 

1 

3 

5 

4 

1 

2 

15 

9 

3 

5 

4 

1 

3 

16 

1 

3 

4 

3 

2 

3 

15 

10 

2 

3 

2 

2 

4 

13 

2 

^ 

4 

3 

2 

3 

15 

11 

3 

4 

3 

2 

2 

14 

1 

2 

4 

3 

3 

3 

1.- 

12 

2 

5 

2 

4 

3 

16 

J 

1 

5 

4 

2 

3 

IS 

13 

1 

5 

3 

3 

2 

14 

1 

4 

3 

3 

2 

3 

15 

14 

4 

2 

2 

3 

2 

13 

2 

2 

4 

3 

4 

3 

16 

15 

J 

5 

3 

4 

4 

19 

3 

4 

4 

2 

3 

3 

If 

16 

4 

3 

2 

2 

3 

14 

2 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

16 

17 

2 

4 

3 

2 

3 

14 

2 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

17 

18 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

18 

1 

4 

3 

3 

3 

4 

1? 

19 

4 

4 

4 

3 

4 

19 

2 

4 

3 

3 

4 

4 

18 

20 

4 

2 

3 

3 

4 

16 

2 

3 

4 

4 

3 

4 

18 

21 

3 

3 

4 

3 

3 

16 

2 

3 

5 

3 

4 

4 

19 

22 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

20 

1 

4 

S 

3 

3 

4 

19 

23 

4 

5 

3 

4 

3 

19 

0 

4 

3 

4 

3 

5 

19 

24 

5 

3 

4 

4 

4 

20 

1 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

20 

25 

5 

4 

3 

3 

4 

19 

1 

S 

3 

4 

5 

5 

22 

26 

5 

2 

4 

5 

4 

20 

2 

4 

5 

5 

4 

4 

22 

27 

4 

5 

5 

4 

4 

22 

0 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

22 

28 

5 

5 

4 

3 

4 

21 

1 

4 

5 

5 

4 

4 

22 

29 

4 

5 

5 

5 

4 

23 

1 

5 

4 

4 

5 

5 

23 

30 

5 

4 

4 

5 

5 

23 

0 

AGREEMENT  OF  A  AND   B   AS  TO   NEIGHBORHOOD   INDEX. 

Total  No.  of  cases  compared 30 

No.  of  cases  in  exact  agreement 7 

No.  of  cases  in  aRreement   within   1   point 12 

No.  of  cases  in  agreement  within  2  points 29 

No.  of  cases  in   agreement   within  3  points 30 

AGKl-.EMENT    OF    A    AND    P.    ON    SEPARATE    ITEMS. 

Total  No.  of  items  graded   (30  cases.  5  in  each) LSD 

No.   of   items   in   exact   agreenunt 100 

No.   f)f   items   in   ngrccment   within    1    point 50 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions  9 

pose  for  which  the  scale  is  intended,  the  fact  that  differing  judg- 
ments do  occur  suggests  giving  the  greater  weight  to  the  scoring  of 
the  original  observer.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  essential  that  the 
observer's  report  be  graded  as  accurately  as  possible,  to  prevent  any 
serious  discrepancies  between  the  data  and  the  numerical  value  as- 
signed to  it. 

THE  NEIGHBORHOODS  OF  DELINQUENT  BOYS 

The  use  of  the  neighborhood  grading  scale  in  the  study  of  en- 
vironmental conditions  associated  with  delinquency  has  brought  fruit- 
ful results,  and  promises  to  be  a  highly  reliable  instrument  for  future 
comparisons  of  different  social  and  economic  levels.  In  Table  11  is 
given  the  distribution  of  the  indices  of  135  neighborhoods,  in  each 
of  which  is  located  the  home  of  one  or  more  delinquent  boys.  These 
range  from  Index  6,  the  lowest,  to  Index  24,  the  highest  yet  found 
among  our  cases.  The  median  is  represented  by  Index  16.  AVhile  it 
is  possible  that  the  study  of  a  larger  number  of  cases  will  reveal 
Slight  differences,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  distribution  of  neighbor- 
hoods of  delinquent  beys  committed  to  AVhittier  State  School  will 
be  found  to  be  much  higher  or  lower  than  is  indicated  by  this  table. 
It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  neigli-borhoods  of  delinquent  boys 
are  of  varying  degrees  of  favorability.  No  "type"  of  neighborhood 
can  be  defined  which  occurs  with  sufficient  frequency  as  to  be  con- 
sidered representative  of  conditions  which  are  supposed  to  cause  or 
to  be  particularly  associated  with  delinquency.  Our  case  No.  1  (Table 
IV)  which  has  an  index  of  6  is  a  filthy,  dirty  locality,  resembling  a 
neglected  barnyard,  although  located  in  a  large  city.  Case  No.  135, 
our  highest,  having  an  Index  24,  is  neat,  clean,  well  improved,  con- 
tains CA'ery  modern  convenience,  and  is  a  highly  desirable  location  for 
any  home. 

In  the  distribution  of  individual  item-points  (Table  III)  there  is 
seen  a  general  tendency  for  the  different  items  to  grade  approxi- 
mately the  same.  The  medians  fall  at  grade  3  in  all  items  except  TI 
(playground  facilities)  which  has  a  median  of  4.  It  seems,  therefore, 
thH<  the  delinquent  boys  who  have  lived  in  these  neighborhoods  have 
not  been  seriously  handicapped  by  lack  of  facilities  for  a  normal  out- 
let for  their  energies  in  the  form  of  play.  The  scale  does  not  indicate, 
however,  the  extent  to  which  the  boys  took  advantage  of  these  oppor- 
tunities.    Note  that  while  playground  facilities  are  accorded  a  high 


10  Whittier  State  School:  Department  of  Research 

average  score,  the  only  case  in  which  occasion  is  found  to  use  zero 
is  in  this  item. 

TABLE   II.     NEIGHBORHOOD    INDEX   DISTRIBUTION   FOR    135 
DELINQUENT  BOYS. 

Index  6 1  case 

Index  8 1  case 

Index  9 0  cases 

Index  10 4  cases 

Index  11 3  cases 

Index  13 15  cases 

Index  14 15  cases 

Index  15 18  cases 

Index  16  (Median) 17  cases 

Index  17 8  cases 

Index  18 9  cases 

Index  19 13  cases 

Index  20 9  cases 

Index  21 7  cases 

Index  22 5  cases 

Index  23 3  cases 

Index  24 1  case 

TABLE     III.      DISTRIBUTION     OF     ITEM-POINTS,     NEIGHBOR- 
HOODS OF  135  DELINQUENT  BOYS. 

ITEMS  I  II  III  IV  V 

No.  grading  0  0  10  0  0 

No.  grading  1  12  9  3  10  1 

No.  grading  2  25  18  23  39  16 

No.  grading  3  44  34  58  43  54 

No.  grading  4  48  54  46  41  50 

No.  grading  5  6  19  5  2  14 

Total    ....  135       135       135       135       135 

Medians  3  4  3  3  3 

It  would  lie  interesting  to  sliow  the  individual  item  scores  for 
each  of  our  Viij  cases.  Space  not  permitting  this,  however,  the  ten 
lowest,  the  ten  nearest  the  median,  and  the  ten  highest  are  shown  in 
Tahh's  IV,  V,  and  VI  respectively.  For  comparison,  the  Home  Index 
(II.  I.)  of  radi  is  given  in  the  column  following  the  Neighborhood 
lnd('x(N    1.)  It  will  Ix'  seen  tlinl   in  ^cuf.'ral  the  neiglihoi'hoods  having 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions  11 

TABLE  IV.  LOWEST  10  CASES  AMONG  135  NEIGHBORHOOODS 
OF  DELINQUENT  BOYS.  SHOWING  NEIGHBORHOOD  INDEX 
(N.  I.)  AND  HOME  INDEX   (H.  L). 


No. 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

N.I. 

H.I. 

1. 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

6 

6 

2. 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

8 

5 

3. 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

9 

11 

4. 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

9 

6 

5. 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

9 

6 

6. 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

9 

9 

7. 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

9 

8 

8. 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

9 

10 

9. 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

10 

14 

10. 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

10 

5 

TABLE  V.  MEDIAN  10  CASES  AMONG  135  NEIGHBORHOODS 
OF  DELINQUENT  BOYS  SHOWING  NEIGHBORHOOD  INDEX  (N. 
I.)  AND  HOME  INDEX   (H.  I.). 


No. 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

N.I. 

H.I. 

64. 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

16 

10 

65. 

2 

3 

4 

3 

4 

16 

14 

66. 

2 

4 

4 

3 

3 

16 

13 

67. 

2 

4 

4 

3 

3 

16 

15 

68. 

2 

5 

3 

2 

4 

16 

16 

69. 

2 

5 

3 

2 

4 

16 

9 

70. 

3 

1 

4 

4 

4 

16 

19 

71. 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

16 

20 

72. 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

16 

13 

73. 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

16 

16 

TABLE  VI.  HIGHEST  10  OF  135  NEIGHBORHOODS  OF  DE- 
LINQUENT BOYS.  SHOWING  NEIGHBORHOOD  INDEX  (N.  T.) 
AND   HOME  INDEX    (H.   I.). 


No. 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

N.I. 

H.I 

126. 

5 

4 

3 

4 

5 

21 

21 

127 

4 

5 

5 

4 

4 

22 

17 

128. 

4 

5 

4 

4 

5 

22 

24 

129. 

4 

5 

5 

4 

4 

22 

15 

130. 

5 

4 

4 

4 

5 

22 

21 

131. 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

22 

15 

132. 

4 

5 

5 

4 

5 

23 

21 

133. 

5 

4 

4 

5 

5 

23 

17 

134. 

5 

5 

4 

4 

5 

23 

11 

135. 

5 

4 

5 

5 

5 

24 

17 

12  Whittier  State  School:  Department  of  Research 

a  low  index  tend  to  grade  low  in  all  items;  i.  e.,  neighborhoods  defi- 
cient in  one  or  two  items  are  likely  to  be  similarly  low  in  all;  neigh- 
borhoods decidedly  superior  in  one  or  two  items  are  likely  to  grade 
high  in  all,  and  to  have  a  high  index.  This  similarity  of  item  scores  is 
additional  assurance  of  the  validity  of  the  N.  1.  as  an  expression  of 
the  quality  of  neighborhoods  in  which  children  live. 

Representative  examples  of  the  individual  neighborhood  score 
cards  of  delinquent  boys  are  shown  in  Fig.  2.  The  upper  card  is 
taken  from  amorg  the  least  favorable  of  the  neighborhoods  yet  graded. 
Especially  low  qualities  in  this  case  are  neatness,  sanitation,  and  social 
status  of  residents.  The  middle  card  represents  conditions  slightly 
above  the  general  average  for  our  cases.  The  lower  card  represents 
relatively  favorable  conditions.  Note  that  in  this  case  grade  5  is 
accorded   for  three  items,  and  that  grades  1  and  2  are  not  used. 

NEIGHBORHOODS   OF   NON-DELINQUENT    CHILDREN 

It  is  expected  that  the  neighborhood  grading  scale  may  soon  be 
applied  to  a  sufficiently  large  number  of  unselected  homes  of  differ- 
ent social  levels  that  standards,  or  norms,  may  be  secured  for  the 
general  population.  It  is  desirable  to  compare  neighborhoods  to  secure 
racial  differences ;  to  secure  occupational  differences ;  to  compare  rural 
and  urban  communities;  to  compare  averages  for  eastern  cities  with 
those  of  western  and  southern  cities ;  and,  what  may  prove  to  be  of 
still  greater  importance,  to  compare  the  neigh])orhood  conditions  of 
delinquent  children  with  those  of  children  who  have  not  become 
delinquent. 

In  the  absence  of  comparative  averages,  we  have  graded  fifty 
neighborhoods  in  wliieh  delinquency  has  never  oecured,  'but  which 
have  the  usual  proportion  of  children.  These  fifty  eases  can  by  no 
means  be  considered  representative  of  the  general  population,  but 
included  among  them  are  neighborhoods  of  persons  of  quite  different 
social  and  economic  levels,  laboring  men,  1)usiness  men,  tradesmen, 
professional  men,  and  college  professors.  Data  on  these  neighbor- 
hoods have  been  recorded  and  graded  exactly  in  the  same  way  as  for 
the  noighliorhoods  of  delinquent  boys.*  The  index  distribution  is 
shown  in  Tal)h!  \'ir.  Th(>  indices  range  from  11  to  25,  with  the  median 
falling  at  IikIi'N   ID.     It  is  interesting  to  note  tliat  while  in  these  few 


•These  are  the  noiphborhoods  of  the  fifty  homes  of  the  non-delinquent  children 
used  for  compariHon  in  the  recent  description  of  the  home-grading  scale. 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions  13 

cases  none   compares   with   the   lowest   in   our   delincjiient   group,   the 
liigliest  eases  compare  favorahly  with  our  highest. 

TABLE  VII.     INDEX   DISTRIBUTION   OF  50   NEIGHBORHOODS 
CONTAINING  NO   DELINQUENT   CHILDREN. 

Index  11 1   case 

Index  14 2  cases 

Index  15 : 3  cases 

Index  16 5  cases 

Index  17 4  case.« 

Index  18 3  cases 

Index  19  (Median) 9  cases 

Index  20 10  cases 

Index  21 2  cases 

Index  22 6  cases 

Index  23 3  cases 

Index  24 1   case 

Index  25 1  case 

Tlie  distribution  of  item-points  for  the  neighbor Jioods.  of  non- 
delinquent  children  is  shown  in  Table  VIII.  The  median  in  all  cases  is 
4,  which  is  one  point  higher  than  the  median  for  delinquents  (Table 
III)  in  all  cases  except  item  II  (playground  facilities.)  Note  that  in 
the  distribution  in  Table  VIII  the  scores  of  0  and  1  point  are  not  used. 

TABLE  VIII.  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ITEM-POINTS,  50  NEIGHBOR- 
HOODS   CONTAINING   NO    DELINQUENT    CHILDREN. 


ITEMS 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

No.  grading 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

No.  grading 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

No.  grading 

2 

9 

0 

1 

1 

4 

No.  grading 

3 

10 

12 

9 

22 

8 

No.  grading 

4 

27 

30 

34 

19 

24 

No.  grading 

5 

4 

8 

fi 

s 

1,1 

Total.... 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

Medians 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

The  comparison  of  neighborhoods  of  the  delinquent  and  non-delin- 
quent groups  afforded  by  the  distribution  of  item-points  is  shown 
graphically  in  Fig.  3  and  Fig.  4.  The  explanation  of  shading  is  given  at 
the  bottom  of  the  upper  chart.  Again  it  should  be  emphasized  that 
these  fifty  neighborhoods  of  non-delinquent  children  are  not  to  be 
taken  as  representative  of  the  general  population. 


u 


Whittier  State  School:  Department  of  Research 


ntAJnis*. 

SANrTATtOn. 
HtP*OVLH[>VT$ 


CA5CS 


135" 


*   POINT* 


s  POl^4Ta 


Fig.  3. 


Distribution  of  iterr.'points  135  neighborhoods  of  delinquent 
boys  (compare  with  Fig.  4). 


ff^aenT 


10       ia        sa 


4o        ep         6e        -yo        act        90        100 


Distribution  of  item-points,  135  neighborhoods  containing 
non-delinquent  children  (compare  with  Fig  4). 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions 
NEIGHBORHOODS  AND  HOMES 


15 


Referring  again  to  Tables  IV,  V,  and  VI,  there  will  be  seen  a 
tendency  for  the  home  index  to  approach  the  neighborhood  index 
within  a  very  few  points.  In  some  cases  the  two  indices  are  identical. 
The  relative  distribution  of  the  N.  I.  and  H.  I.  for  our  135  cases  is 
shown  in  Fig.  5.    Each  dot  represents  one  home.     Its  position  on  the 


y 

I 

/ 

' 

/ 

, 

,• 

/ 

/ 

21 
21 

/ 

• 

/ 

' 

'  J 

1 

<9 

/ 

1  «i 

,• 

1 

' 

/ 

• 

/ 

ft 

,        J 

/ 

p 

• 

y 

1 

P  1 

,•  , 

^ 

If 

^* 

U 

,•  , 

^ 

b  ' 

,• 

Z 

/. 

,• 

X 

»* 

1*  1 

,• 

/ 

I* 

0 

I  in 

V 

f   , 

,• 

,• 

9 

V 

• 

•, 

•    ^ 

,• 

/. 

,• 

/ 

•i 

5 

1 

/ 

»•    ( 

•  , 



"7 

Z 

V- 

— 

.— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

5 

A 
3 

Z 



7 

^ 

— 

- 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

« 
i 

2 

/ 

z 

10     II      12     10     14 


16     17     IS    19     XO    21     22    23    24    25    2* 


Fig.    5.    Comparative    index    distribution  of    135   homes  of     delin- 
quent boys  and  the  neighborhoods  in  which  homes  are  located, 

vertical  scale  represents  the  home  index ;  its  position  on  the  horizontal 
scale  represents  the  neighborhood  index.  The  diagonal  line  through 
the  center  passes  through  the  points  at  which  the  N.  I.  and  H.  I.  are 
identical.     The  closer  the  dot  representing  a  given  home  approaches 


16  Whittier  State  School:  Department  of  Research 

this  line,  the  nearer  the  resemblance  of  the  two  indices,  in  number  of 
points.  Dots  above  the  diagonal  line  represent  homes  grading  higher 
than  the  neighborhood ;  dots  below  the  line  represent  homes  which 
grade  lower  tnan  tne  neighborhood  m  wnicii  tliey  are  located. 

The  home  indices  of  these  135  delinquent  boys  are  lower,  on  the 
average,  than  the  indices  of  their  neighborhoods,  as  may  be  observed 
in  the  greater  number  of  dots  which  fall  below  the  diagonal  line. 
There  are  a  few  cases  of  striking  difference ;  one  case  in  which  the 
liome  grades  5  and  the  neighborhood  17,  a  difference  of  12  points ;  a 
case  of  home  index  6  and  nei^'hborhood  index  16  •  a  case  of  home 
index  11  and  neighborhood  index  23.  The  cases  of  widest  deviation  in 
favor  of  the  home  are  as  follows :  H.  I.  14,  N.  I.  10 ;  11.  I.  18,  N.  I.  14 ; 
Ti.  I.  23,  N.  I.  19;  differences  of  but  four  points  in  each  case.  The 
majority  of  cases,  however,  falls  near  the  line  of  equal  scores. 

A  similar  graph  for  the  fifty  homes  and  neighborhoods  of  non- 
delinquent  children  shows  a  general  superiority  of  the  homes.  36 
cases  appear  above  the  diagonal  line,  3  cases  on  the  line,  and  11  cases 
below  the  line.  AVhere  the  home  is  inferior  to  the  neighborhood  in 
which  it  is  located  it  is  likely  to  differ  more  widely  than  do  the  cases 
in  which  the  home  is  superior.  There  is  one  case  of  11.  I.  4,  N.  I.  17 ; 
another  of  H.  I.  15,  N.  I.  22.  The  widest  difference  in  favor  of  the 
home  is  H.  I.  24,  N.  I.  16.  The  chart  is  not  reproduced  here  because 
of  the  few  eases  represented. 

SUMMARY 

I.  The  Whittier  Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions  is 
offered  as  a  means  toward  the  future  measurement  of  environmental 
factors  of  social  and  economic  significance.  It  supplements  the  Whit- 
tier Scale  for  Grading  Home  Conditions,  an  account  of  which  was 
recently  published. 

II.  Neighborhoods  are  graded  by  securing  data  from  a  personal 
visit,  the  observer  (in  our  case  a  trained  field-worker)  separating  tliC 
data  into  five  divisions,  and  comparing  with  samples  arrang^'d  on 
the  standard  score-card.  The  grading  for  each  of  the  five  divisions, 
or  items,  is  based  upon  a  scale  of  five  points,  the  sum  of  the  item- 
scores  being  the  Neig}i])orhood  Index. 


Scale  for  Grading  Neighborhood  Conditions  17 

III.  The  items  graded  are  I,  neatness,  sanitation  and  improve- 
ments ;  II,  playground  facilities ;  III,  institutions  and  establishments ; 
IV,  social  status  of  residents;  V,  average  grade  of  homes. 

IV.  The  standard  samples  given  bring  highly  reliable  results, 
as  judged  by  the  comparative  gradings  of    different  persons. 

V.  Neighborhoods  of  135  delinquent  boys  at  Whittier  State  School 
range  from  Index  6,  which  is  very  unfavorable,  to  Index  24,  which 
may  be  considered  highly  favorable.     The  median  index  is  16. 

VI.  Fifty  neighborhoods  in  which  children  live,  but  in  which  no 
children  have  become  delinquent,  range  from  Index  11  to  Index  25, 
the  median  being  19.  These  are  not  sufficiently  unselected  to  repre- 
sent the  general  population,  but  the  distribution  may  be  considered 
significant  for  comparison  with  the  delinquent  group. 

VII.  The  homes  of  135  delinquent  boys  grade  somewhat  lower, 
on  the  average,  than  the  neighborhoods  in  -vvhich  they  are  located. 
In  50  cases  constituting  the  non-delinquent  group  the  homes  tend  to 
grade  higher  than  the  neighborhoods.  In  the  majority  of  cases  of 
either  group  the  two  indices  do  not  differ  more  than  a  few  points. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  bat*  Is  DUE  oil  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


liiTi  m-^^m 


SEP 


1    ^91^ 


jriii  L'J-  Series  444 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  841  259    5 


f  » 


t 


PLEA*^t  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
THIS  BOOK  CARD  i 


<^^lLIBRARYQ^ 


^c?/0JITV3JO^ 
University  Research  Library 


I 
Z 


